MetaMask Review
Published swap fee and wide hardware wallet support
of 10
MetaMask scores 7.8/10 in our wallet ratings. It publishes a fixed 0.875% swap fee, supports twelve hardware wallets on the extension and now covers Solana and Bitcoin as well as EVM networks. Its code ships under a non-commercial licence rather than an open-source one. Based on desk research of MetaMask's own documentation.
Overall score
7.8/10 (39 / 5), up from 6.8
Swap fee
0.875% MetaMask fee, plus network fee
Networks
EVM networks, Solana and Bitcoin; TRON added January 2026
Hardware wallets
12 on the extension, 3 on mobile; EVM accounts only
Licence
ConsenSys licence, non-commercial use only
Scores
Each criterion carries equal weight. The overall score is the average of these 5 scores — (9.0 + 3.0 + 8.0 + 10.0 + 9.0) ÷ 5 = 7.8.
Pros
- Swap fee published as a fixed 0.875%, separate from rate and gas (fees 10)
- 12 hardware wallets supported on the extension, including QR air-gapped devices (hardware 9)
- Help center states MetaMask cannot access your recovery phrase (custody 9)
- Multichain accounts add Solana and Bitcoin to EVM networks (coverage 8)
Cons
- Licence limits use to non-commercial purposes; not open source (open source 3)
- Hardware accounts are EVM-only, so no hardware signing for Solana or Bitcoin
- Only three hardware wallets are supported on mobile
- The published 0.875% swap fee is more than three times Rabby's 0.25%
MetaMask scores 7.8 out of 10 in our wallet ratings, third of the six wallets we rate. It is marked up for publishing its swap fee as a fixed figure and for a long list of supported hardware wallets. Its licence is the main thing holding it back: the source code is public, but it is not released under an open-source licence.
How MetaMask scores in wallets
All wallets in this category are marked on the same five criteria, each scored from 0 to 10 and given equal weight. This rating comes from desk research of MetaMask's help center, its announcements and the licence file in its GitHub repository. We did not test the wallet hands-on.
| Criterion | Finding | Mark |
|---|---|---|
| Custody & key control | Self-custodial; the help center states "MetaMask cannot access your Secret Recovery Phrases" | 9 |
| Open source | Code is public, but the LICENSE file is a ConsenSys licence limited to non-commercial use | 3 |
| Chain & asset coverage | Each multichain account holds an EVM, a Solana and a Bitcoin address; TRON was added in January 2026 | 8 |
| Fee transparency | Swap fee published as a fixed 0.875%, shown separately from the quote rate and network fee | 10 |
| Hardware wallet support | 12 hardware wallets listed for the extension and 3 for mobile; hardware accounts are EVM-only | 9 |
The overall score is the plain average: (9 + 3 + 8 + 10 + 9) / 5 = 39 / 5 = 7.8.
Two marks changed at this check. Both follow MetaMask documentation that was not cited at the July 2026 check. Hardware wallet support rose from 5 to 9 after the hardware wallet hub was cited: it lists twelve supported devices on the extension. At the July check, pairing was not stated on any page we cited. Chain & asset coverage rose from 7 to 8 because MetaMask is no longer confined to EVM (Ethereum Virtual Machine) networks. The help center says each multichain account now carries Solana and Bitcoin addresses as well. The overall score moved from 6.8 to 7.8.
Strongest criteria
Fee transparency: 10
MetaMask's swap guide lists the cost in three parts: the quote rate, the network fee and a MetaMask fee of 0.875%. A fixed percentage lets you work out the wallet's cut before you trade: on a $1,000 swap it is $8.75, before gas and any gap between the quote and the market. A published fee is not a low fee. MetaMask's 0.875% is higher than the 0.25% Rabby publishes, and the score measures disclosure, not price. Our guide to how gas works covers the network-fee part.
Hardware wallet support: 9
The extension works with Ledger, Trezor, Lattice, AirGap Vault, Arculus, CoolWallet, D'Cent, imToken, Keycard Shell, Keystone, NGRAVE ZERO and OneKey. Several of these are air-gapped devices that sign by QR code. On mobile the list is shorter: Keystone, Ledger and NGRAVE ZERO. The mark stops at 9 rather than 10 because the multichain accounts page says hardware accounts stay EVM-only. A Ledger connected to MetaMask cannot sign for the Solana or Bitcoin side of the wallet.
Custody & key control: 9
The help center states that MetaMask cannot access your Secret Recovery Phrases. The wallet holds keys on your device, and the company cannot recover a lost phrase.
Weakest criteria
Open source: 3, a measured deficiency
The extension's code is on GitHub, and anyone can read it. The LICENSE file, however, is a ConsenSys Software licence that grants rights only for non-commercial use. It is not a recognized open-source licence. This is a finding about the licence, not a lack of evidence. Being able to audit the code matters for security. The right to fork it, reuse it or ship a modified build is what an open-source licence adds, and this licence withholds it. Rabby (modified MIT) and Sparrow (Apache 2) both grant those rights and score 9 and 10.
Chain & asset coverage: 8, broad but not the broadest
Many EVM networks plus Solana, Bitcoin and, since a January 2026 announcement, TRON is far wider than an EVM-only wallet. Trust Wallet (100-plus blockchains, 10) and Exodus (over 700,000 assets, 9) still list more.
What the score does not cover
- Add-on services. Perps, the MetaMask Card, staking and buying are run largely by third parties under their own terms, and none of them is scored here.
- Price. Fee transparency measures whether the cost is published, not whether it is competitive.
- Security testing. We did not audit the code, and a high custody mark is not a guarantee that funds are safe on an internet-connected device.
MetaMask vs Rabby and Phantom
The six rated wallets stand at Rabby Wallet 9.0, Sparrow Wallet 8.8, MetaMask 7.8, Phantom 7.4, Exodus 7.0 and Trust Wallet 6.4. Rabby is the closest like-for-like rival, another browser wallet for EVM networks. It scores 1.2 points higher. The gap comes almost entirely from open source (9 against 3) and hardware support (10 against 9). MetaMask wins on coverage (8 against 7), because Rabby supports no non-EVM chains. Phantom, 0.4 lower at 7.4, matches MetaMask on custody, open source and fee disclosure. It trails on coverage (7 against 8) and on hardware, where it supports Ledger only (8 against 9).
Who it suits
The score suits someone who works mainly on EVM networks, wants to know the wallet's swap cut in advance, and may use one of many hardware wallets. It is less suited to a reader who needs a genuinely open-source licence, or who wants hardware signing for Solana or Bitcoin from the same app. Install only from the official download page or app stores; see our guide to avoiding wallet phishing.
How it compares
Rabby Wallet
Open-source EVM wallet with a low published fee and wide hardware list
Sparrow Wallet
Open-source Bitcoin wallet for hardware signing and your own node
Phantom
Clear custody terms and a published swap fee for Solana users
Exodus
Broad asset coverage with Ledger and Trezor pairing
Trust Wallet
Broadest chain coverage in one self-custodial app
Sources
Scored from published primary sources rather than hands-on use. Every figure above comes from one of the pages below, on the date shown. Manufacturers change prices and specifications without notice — if something here no longer matches the source, tell us and we will correct it.
- 1.MetaMask Help Center — user guide: swaps (0.875% fee) — checked
- 2.MetaMask Help Center — hardware wallet hub (supported devices) — checked
- 3.MetaMask Help Center — multichain accounts (EVM, Solana, Bitcoin; hardware EVM-only) — checked
- 4.MetaMask Help Center — MetaMask is a self-custodial wallet — checked
- 5.MetaMask extension — LICENSE file (GitHub) — checked
- 6.MetaMask — Introducing TRON on MetaMask (15 Jan 2026) — checked
Frequently asked questions
Why does MetaMask score 7.8?
It is the plain average of five equally weighted marks: 9 for custody, 3 for open source, 8 for coverage, 10 for fee transparency and 9 for hardware support. 39 divided by 5 is 7.8.
What holds MetaMask back?
Mainly its licence. The code is public, but the licence restricts use to non-commercial purposes, so it scores 3 on open source. Hardware signing is also limited to EVM accounts.
What changed since the previous MetaMask rating?
Hardware wallet support rose from 5 to 9 once MetaMask's hardware wallet hub was cited, and coverage rose from 7 to 8 after multichain accounts added Solana and Bitcoin. The overall score moved from 6.8 to 7.8.
Who is MetaMask's score most useful for?
People who mostly use EVM networks and want to know the swap fee before they trade, and those who sign with a hardware wallet on desktop. It says less about the app's perps, card or staking features, which are not scored.
How does MetaMask compare with Rabby and Phantom?
Rabby scores 9.0. It is genuinely open source, charges a lower published swap fee and supports more hardware, but it covers EVM networks only. Phantom scores 7.4, with a published fee too but narrower coverage and Ledger-only hardware support.
Nothing here is financial advice. Editorial policy · How we score · How we're funded.